How the PESA has boosted forest conservation in India

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated26/06/2024

The policy approach to conservation in India has long grappled with two kinds of conflicts: conservation versus resource extraction by local communities, and conservation versus ‘economic development. .

It goes without saying that greater the centralisation of political power, the greater the say of the national and state elites, which would prioritize the interests of big capital over that of local communities.
- Deforestation driven by mining, power projects, commercial timber, big dams etc. could prevail over conservation and/or livelihoods of forest communities, a noticeable phenomenon in India.
- Conservation initiatives would follow a top-down approach, leading to local communities losing access to traditional forest lands.
A policy approach providing political representation to marginalized communities boosts forest conservation while securing their economic interests
The case for a combination of decentralization and democratization, where marginalized local communities enjoy not just token political representation but have actual say in both decision-making and resource management.

A data-driven study of political representation: the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA).
PESA extends local government councils to Scheduled Areas.
Under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, regions with predominantly tribal populations are categorized as ‘Scheduled Areas’, a territorial designation that recognises the customary rights of the Scheduled Tribes (ST).
The 73rd Amendment, passed in 1992, formalized local self-government Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) in the non-Scheduled Areas; it did so without “mandated representation for STs”.
PESA, 1996 however, took it a step further:
- Introduced an electoral quota that requires all chairperson positions, as well as at least half the seats on each local government councils to be reserved for ST individuals.”
- Incidentally, in States where PESA has not been implemented well, as in Gujarat, for instance, the most common failure has been the absence of mandated ST representation in gram sabha committees.

Tracking the increase and decrease of tree and vegetation cover over time and across the forested areas,
- It was found “boosting formal representation for ST led to an average increase in tree canopy by 3% per year as well as a reduction in the rate of deforestation.”
The study also showed that the rise in tree canopy and fall in deforestation only began to happen “after the introduction of PESA elections that mandate quotas for ST.”
- In other words, the mere presence of PRIs or local self-government which were introduced from 1993 “without mandated representation for the ST, had no conservation effects.”
- The STs had an economic incentive to protect trees, which they needed for their livelihoods for non-timber forest produce, a dependency that made them hostile to commercial timber and mining.
Qualitative and quantitative evidence finds that prior to PESA, areas close to mines experienced higher rates of deforestation. But the introduction of PESA elections led to a greater reduction in deforestation for PESA villages close to mines. .

PESA with that of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), a legislation that aimed to bolster ST rights to forest lands.
- It was found that FRA, 2006 had “no additional impacts” on conservation “beyond those caused by PESA.”
In conclusion, mandated political representation for marginalized communities is one institutional mechanism that can yield better results in conservation,
A single institution rather than multiple ones vested with different mandates is critical because it would be “better at recognising how to balance the dual policy objectives of development and conservation;
Forest-dwelling ST communities are one of the most impoverished and politically marginalized populations in India.